EDIT2: "hildakoen arimen eta pertsonaia mitologiko gehienak"Is "arimen" in noren because of gehienak? Can we that gehienak refers to both the arimak and pertsonaia mitologikoak? And why is one in the noren case and the other in mugagabe? I figure noren is optional here, I just wanted to double check.

I need to read the full paragraph, sorry. Without context, this syntagm is of course wrong.

EDIT: And another question:"Euskal Herriko elezaharretan Lurra, Ama-Lurra, agertzen zaigu Jainko nagusi legez. Izaki guztien bizilekua eta babesa, berezko bizitza indarra duena eta natura guztiaren sortzailea."There are a couple things here i don't quite get. The second sentence seems like it doesn't have a verb? "The housing and protection of all creatures, one who has an intrinsic life force (unsure about this part), and the creator of all nature." It seems like there should be a "...are some of her responsibilities" or something at the end.

hmm, no, the sentence is correct. The verb is just implicit. The author implies that "Ama Lurra" IS all of these things: protection, force, etc...

EDIT2: "hildakoen arimen eta pertsonaia mitologiko gehienak"Is "arimen" in noren because of gehienak? Can we that gehienak refers to both the arimak and pertsonaia mitologikoak? And why is one in the noren case and the other in mugagabe? I figure noren is optional here, I just wanted to double check.

I need to read the full paragraph, sorry. Without context, this syntagm is of course wrong.

arabarra wrote:hmm, no, the sentence is correct. The verb is just implicit. The author implies that "Ama Lurra" IS all of these things: protection, force, etc...

That makes sense, i thought an "is" was missing somewhere, i guess it's just implied

arabarra wrote:

Bizitzaren misterioak eragiten duen jakin-min egon-ezinari erantzuten die eta bere inguruko fenomeno naturalei azalpena ematen die.They answer the curiosity and anxiety that the mystery of life brings about... but why is it egon-ezinari and not egon-ezinei? And is no eta required between the two (jakin-min eta egon-ezinari)?

but why should it be "egon ezinei"? The author choose to speak about the anxiety, to the anxieties.

I guess because i figured there are two parts, jakin-min and egon-ezin, like in Spanish "el gato y el perro negros".

Sorry about all the questions, i've been trying to read a bit more in Basque lately, it's slow going but i'm surprised how much i can make out with a dictionary and the occasional glance at verb charts. I should really get on writing a simple app to analyze (tell you the base form, type, and tense of) Basque verbs one of these days...

but why should it be "egon ezinei"? The author choose to speak about the anxiety, not the anxieties.

I guess because i figured there are two parts, jakin-min and egon-ezin, like in Spanish "el gato y el perro negros".

Exactly my point. If you had one dog and one cat, in Spanish you'd say " EL gato y EL perro negros", not "Los perro y Los gato negros". Same in Basque: you have ONE curiosity and ONE anxiety:"JakinminA ta egonezinA gaiztoak dira"

I have a few more questions today:"Sinismen zaharretan Ama-lurraren pertsonifikazioa izan zitekeen."Is this something like "was said to be"? I'm not sure what izan zitekeen means, i thought zitekeen was the past of the potential (ie. of daiteke), she could be?

"Bere bizilekua lur barnea da, hain zuzen ere, haitzuloaetan bizi baita."Could this also be lurraren barnea(n)? The inside of the earth is where she lives, to be precise, she lives in caves. What is this 'bai' attached to da?

"Baina horrez gain, lurrazpiko jeinuengan botere handia du; eguna argitzean bere bizilekura erretira arazten baititu."'lurrazpiko' is lur + azpi, right? Ie. 'underground'. And isn't 'jeinu' a 'genius'? So... "But apart from that, she has power on the underground geniuses"? Is that like saying she controls the "underground geniuses"? Is this 'arazten' the same as the -arazi ending? Ie. "Because she makes them return/withdraw to her home".

EDIT: And the last one for today (i promise!):"Ortzi edo Ostri hodeien gainetik dagoen zeru edo izartegia adierazteko erabiltzen da euskaraz""In Basque, Ortzi/Ostri (are these both words for sky?) is used to convey the heavens or firmament that are (from) above the clouds"This -etik is throwing me off, as is the lack of a suffix on Ostri. Are Ortzi/Ostri both just ways to say sky?

I have a few more questions today:"Sinismen zaharretan Ama-lurraren pertsonifikazioa izan zitekeen."Is this something like "was said to be"? I'm not sure what izan zitekeen means, i thought zitekeen was the past of the potential (ie. of daiteke), she could be?

So izan zitekeen is "could be"? You can't just say "zitekeen" without "izan"? And i don't quite get the meaning: "In the old beliefs she could be Mother Earth's personification." I would've thought "zen" would fit better, but maybe it's because "could be" sounds odd to me in English.

So izan zitekeen is "could be"? You can't just say "zitekeen" without "izan"?

nope, you cannot.

And i don't quite get the meaning: "In the old beliefs she could be Mother Earth's personification." I would've thought "zen" would fit better, but maybe it's because "could be" sounds odd to me in English.

Probably depends on the context. I guess they mean that in some narrations inside the framework of the old beliefs, being a personification of Mother Earths's was one of her roles.

EDIT: And the last one for today (i promise!):"Ortzi edo Ostri hodeien gainetik dagoen zeru edo izartegia adierazteko erabiltzen da euskaraz""In Basque, Ortzi/Ostri (are these both words for sky?) is used to convey the heavens or firmament that are (from) above the clouds"This -etik is throwing me off, as is the lack of a suffix on Ostri. Are Ortzi/Ostri both just ways to say sky?

-etik... you can think on the direct Spanish translation: "por encima de las nubes"

Ortzi/Ostri : Batua speakers will not normally use "ortzi", unless they want to convey a poetic flavour. Normal world is "zeru". I think some oriental dialects still use the word, though.

But some currently common words still have the root "ortz"/"ost", for instance "ortzadar","ortzikara"... and of course, the names of the days: Osteguna, Ostirala!

Today i came across a sentence with a bunch of verbs that are giving me troubles:"Orduan, gizakiak, ostera ere, Ama-Lurrari eskatu zioten argi gehiago zukeen eta iluntasuna garai zezakeen zerbait eman ziezaien."Then, men once again asked Mother Earth to give them (past subjunctive?) something that would have (past conditional) increased the light and that could (past potential) conquer the darkness.

I'm not sure if i've understood that sentence properly. And i thought the past of luke would be lukeen, not zukeen? If i wrote it in the present tense, would it look like this:"Orduan, gizakiak, ostera ere, Ama-Lurrari eskatzen diote argi gehiago luke eta iluntasuna garai dezakeen zerbait eman diezaien"? And i could avoid the subjunctive altogether by using "emateko", right?

I'm finding i can get through sentences more and more easily, but i keep stumbling across these monster sentences, it seems it's the past tense stuff that really makes my head hurt. I can pick a lot up from context, eg. the subjunctive in there. When i first read the sentence, i just thought to myself "This is definitely nor-nori-nork in the past tense, i dunno what mood, but it can only be Ama-Lurra giving something to the men, so..." and just skipped over the components of the word entirely

EDIT: Also, i keep seeing "gizakiak" used with a plural transitive verb, like in the sentence above. Should it not be "gizakiek ... eskatu zioten" or "gizakiak ... eskatu zion"?

EDIT2: Another question: "Izena 'gentil' hitz latindarretik dator, eta horrela deritzoten pertsona fedegabeei." Deritzoten seems incorrect to me, shouldn't it be zeritzeten or deritzete? They called them, not they called it, right?

Today i came across a sentence with a bunch of verbs that are giving me troubles:"Orduan, gizakiak, ostera ere, Ama-Lurrari eskatu zioten argi gehiago zukeen eta iluntasuna garai zezakeen zerbait eman ziezaien."Then, men once again asked Mother Earth to give them (past subjunctive?) something that would have (past conditional) increased the light and that could (past potential) conquer the darkness.

wow, in Batua, that's rather pedantic Basque: "zukeen". Nobody uses that word the way it is used in the sentence, even in writting, and I don't know if it's common in some dialect.

"Zukeen" can be used as a past potential: "goxokia gustuko balu, dagoeneko jango zukeen": if he liked the candy, he would have already eaten it. But even in that case, normal Basque tends to use the form zuen: "goxokia gustuko balu, dagoeneko jango zuen":

the "gizakiak" is wrong in Batua, as you say it should be gizakiek. Relaxing the -ek of the plural ergative is common in Bizkaiera and Gizpukera dialects, though.

EDIT2: Another question: "Izena 'gentil' hitz latindarretik dator, eta horrela deritzoten pertsona fedegabeei." Deritzoten seems incorrect to me, shouldn't it be zeritzeten or deritzete? They called them, not they called it, right?

In Batua it is "zeritzen", clearly. May Gipuzkera speaker would say "zeritzoten", as they tend to use -ote instead of the -dative -e. For instance, they say "diote" instead of "die". If you think that is confusing, you are very right (specially as they also tend to relax the ergative -ek into -ak, as we discussed before!)

yep, emateko is correct. The "argi gehiago luke" part I don't understand, but to be honest, the original "zukeen" is also not right. Have no idea what the author had in mind. The context is "for them to have more light", but that's not how "zukeen" works. The text is simply too affected.

Sorry for the late reply, but i appreciate your responses! It helps a lot. The past few weeks have been pretty busy and i haven't had much time for studying, but i'm gonna start again today

Would it make more sense to say something like "argi gehiago zuen eta iluntasuna garai zezakeen zerbait"? Something that "had" more light and could defeat the darkness? Or perhaps "argia gehituko lukeen eta iluntasuna garai zezakeen zerbait"?

Would it make more sense to say something like "argi gehiago zuen eta iluntasuna garai zezakeen zerbait"? Something that "had" more light and could defeat the darkness? Or perhaps "argia gehituko lukeen eta iluntasuna garai zezakeen zerbait"?

...hm... now I understand the sentence. Yep, the "zukeen" part is actually correct but weird. Oral Basque would restructure the sentence totally.

Let's come to your question about how to express it in the present tense:

I really hate this sentence, it sounds so artificial: the eman diezaien part is rather useless. Not only the subjunctive is on the pedantic side: "eman" is altogether redundant. "Eman" is the implicit value of "eskatu". In order to put this (subjunctive) verb, the sentence gets totally tortured.

Is your oral version like saying "something that has more light, (something) that can overcome darkness"? Your two versions are a lot clearer to me and i can read through them without having to think so much about the structure/tenses.

Today i've got a question about the word "nagusi":"Izututa, jakintsu nagusi batengana jo omen zuten."Is "nagusi" here like saying "an old wise man"? I know nagusi as "main, principal" and i think i've seen it used to mean "old" or "elder", but i just want to doublecheck.

Is your oral version like saying "something that has more light, (something) that can overcome darkness"? Your two versions are a lot clearer to me and i can read through them without having to think so much about the structure/tenses.

yep. There are some people that think that the kind of structures that I exposed are "less basque", claiming that the original ones are more "pure"... Zakurraren putza! ( = "that's bollocks!" ). Purists tend to adore those structures in Basque that make it appear more divergent from Spanish (or any other Indoeuropean language, for that matter). The more exotique, the better, or so they seem to think.

Well, "pure" Basque can be an interesting intellectual exercise, admittedly, but the reality is that real Basque has evolved, and has twisted its structures to make them closer to indoeuropean constructions, wether we like it or not. At least for accumulations of subordinates. So, if a sentence is too obscure... it's probably not real, usable Basque.

Good example! With -ela(rik), it means a circumstancial complement. It doesn't express that in the moment that they had the mist behind them they started to run (that would be -enean). It just means that they started running AND it just so happens that they had the mist behind them.

"Izututa, jakintsu nagusi batengana jo omen zuten."Is "nagusi" here like saying "an old wise man"? I know nagusi as "main, principal" and i think i've seen it used to mean "old" or "elder", but i just want to doublecheck.

hmm... I'd say it means "one of the principal wise men". Not necessarily old (although of course one would think of Yoda and Dumbledoore as archetypic examples for this sentence...)

I also like how different Basque often is from the languages that surround it, though perhaps those exercises are better left for literature than the spoken language. Perhaps it's a bit similar to what Pompeu Fabra tried to do with Catalan in the early 20th century.

So the christian was hiding in the wool (?) pile. Then... he thought the gentil was coming from outside and he opened the door and left. Then the gentil shook the wool pile and left running? I'm not sure who did the thinking or who opened the door.zuela eta - is 'eta' being used like "because" here? I can't make out if this phrase is "Because he heard the sound of the ring (from) rather far" or something like "(While) hearing the sound of the ring (from) rather far..."pentsatzen jarri zen - is this like "se puso a pensar"?lasterrari emanda - 'lasterrari eman' means to start running, so using emanda is that like saying he was forced to start running? Perhaps "puesto a correr"? At first i thought it was the christian who was running, but now i'm not sure if it's actually the gentil...

"-ela eta" can be used as "because", that's correct. It's not exactly "-delako", though. I use -elako to express a very direct cause-effect relationship:

deitu didazulako etorri naiz. "I came because you called me"

Musika entzuten zela-ta, taberna barrura sartu ginen.

So, we heard music, and we entered... but we could have NOT entered... it's a weaker relationship.

In any case, the translation would be closer to "since" that "because", as you cannot use it to answer a "zergatik" question.

pentsatzen jarri zen - is this like "se puso a pensar"?

bingo!

lasterrari emanda - 'lasterrari eman' means to start running, so using emanda is that like saying he was forced to start running?

no, he wasn't forced. "lasterrari emanda" is a colloquial form, meaning just "running like hell". If you want to figure out how the form is built, the idea is like "you give yourself to the speed", what sounds rather dramatic.

Ahhhh, the rest of that story makes so much more sense now, i didn't realize that it was the ring that shouted "Hemen nago!"

So that -a ending can also have a similar meaning to "one that..." (eg. one that shouts "hemen nago!")? I understand when it replaces a "the" noun (the dog that runs, korrika egiten duena), but was a bit unsure about these sentences where we've already stated what we're talking about (txakur bat, korrika egiten duena).

Thanks for the clarification on -ela eta, too. I've seen it used without the -ela, eg. "ezin dut joan, berando da (not dela) eta", i wasn't sure if it was the same pattern.

Eraztunaren hotsa urruti xamar entzuten zuela eta, kanpotik ote zetorren pentsatzen jarri zen eta atea ireki zuen, kobatik irtenez.Since he heard the sound of the ring rather far (it sounded like it was far away), he started to think that perhaps it came from outside and opened the door, going out of the cave.

So.. the gentil thought that the christian was far away because the sound of the ring was quiet (since it was in the pile of wool/fleece/whatever that is) and then he left the cave to check the pile of sheep-fur (which is outside?), he shook it and then ran away? What an odd fellow...